In message <caocfvzjft8nxfv9d5p_dljxgzwo_gxpyyps6-b12c-woe6h...@mail.gmail.com> , Stefan Mai writes:
>Is there any work being done on adding support for additional ESI >constructs (such as esi:vars)? If not, would the core devs be willing to >consider a possible patch (from me) adding support for a few additional >constructs (as well as updated documentation)? I'd like to add this >functionality but I want to also make sure it has the possibility of making >it into upstream if the quality is up to snuff. Good patches are always welcome :-) I have no objections to esi:vars on any grounds of principle, but last I looked, which was basically when we added ESI in the first place, I saw a number of implementation details which caused be to put it outside the boundary of our ESI implementation. Since then the ESI parser was rewritten with extension of the ESI feature-set in mind, but I didn't revisit esi:vars specifically. It's probably a good idea, if you try to write an outline of how you want to tackle the implementation and pass it by -dev first, so that you don't spend a lot of time on stuff we can answer or head down a wrong turn without us knowing. Other than that: Go for it. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [email protected] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ varnish-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.varnish-cache.org/lists/mailman/listinfo/varnish-dev
